It’s coming out if somebodies budget and ultimtely the taxpayers!
I very much doubt that the ACO and MOD are raiding the PTS badge budget to pay their legal costs.
1 Like
So they find against the ATC, where does the money come from to pay whatever they have to pay? We are told repeatedly by HQAC they don’t have the money to pay for things, yet something like this comes up and the money would be there. Do HQAC have fines/damages/court costs budget, as that would be a sizeable pot of money.
Even with time to pay, the money has to come from somewhere.
It will come from the MOD.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s a government case. Even the lawyers were GLS.
If it comes from the MoD it is still the taxpayer paying for something when the money could be better spent elsewhere.
At least someone will get this money and it’s not like when say a govt dept gets fined £x for not doing something, which means they lose that money from their budget, but no explanation as to who gets the money and what they do with it. I wouldn’t take money off say an NHS Trust, I’d cut all SLT salaries for 5 years by 25% and make them sign to stay for 7 years.
My point was more towards the apparent suggestion that it was somehow optional.
1 Like
Where did I say or allude it is optional?
Here, essentially.
1 Like
I didn’t mean the court’s judgement would be optional, just that HQAC constantly plead poverty (every COs/Staff Conference same old line) and would find the money to pay anything from a court, which would suggest a contingency fund, which could be dipped into for things like badges and rank slides and then built into the appropriate budget the next year.
The whole point of a contingency fund is that you use it for unforeseen things, not for Business as Usual items like badges.
1 Like
And, as we’ve already said, the money is most likely coming direct from the MOD not HQAC. Please stop being selective in what you read.
4 Likes
Saw that, but I was being accused of something I didn’t say and selective reading or interpretation came into play. So I clarified the point, I can’t help it if people want to carry on after that.
I believe this is where Crown Indemnity comes in. The Air Cadets, MOD, etc are not Insured, ie they don’t take out insurance with a business because if they are sued they department has the money to just pay it. For example a government owned building does not generally have public liability insurance.
The problems comes if a CFAV is negligent are they covered by the MoD as they are volunteers not employee’s in the true sense. As an ex-member of the NHS, the trust covered us for vicarious liability but the lawyers at NHS Litigation were working on behalf of the employers not the employee’s as such. NHS management would throw the individual to the wolves without a doubt. It was recommended that everyone had separate insurance through a union or professional body.
In the NHS Crown indemnity was scrapped years ago, as it prevented people like environmental health officers inspecting the catering facilities for instance or people suing hospitals.
Should CFAVs consider their own indemnity insurance as they are not as I say employee’s?
No Government Department maintains a budget to cover legal costs, unless they set aside a contingency fund. It is quite clear what public funds are allocated to HQAC, but if you look at the case it was clearly against the MOD. As I have said before, the ACO or a Wing have no legal status, - the MOD being the only entity which can be taken to court.
So the MOD will find the money for legal costs and any compensation. Remember the Gulf War when equipment acquisition was enabled outside of the normal budget.
In this case even if individuals had been been negligent, it is the organisation which has been in court, besides which an individual could not afford to pay the compensation.
And therefore as Teflon says it is the taxpayer who foots the bill.
It is also worth commenting that in the case of a Wing Commander who had two days in court, it was an MOD employed Barrister who had the case withdrawn - and you dont get a court case allocated time, when there is no substantive justification for it, although innocent until proven guilty is the normal rule.
All points towards the MOD using public money to paper over the cracks, but leaving little assurance that it wont happen again.
If only that were true
Someone’s been busy.
So compensation was paid.
What for and how much, has not been released.
1 Like
Blatant avoidance / delay tactics from the outset.
Doesn’t surprise me.
My wing was subject to a FOI request; I had several emails in my inbox pertaining to the subject, including key words mentioned in the the request. The FOI was returned as information not held…